What's the Code for the Video in My/Your Brain?

[Cornucopia]

Not sure about it where you live~, but lots of places have PLENTY of wind in January!


Scott

[thecoalman]

If you are fully dependent on that resource it doesn't matter if it blows for 364 days a year and stops blowing for 1 day. Being from Texas you are very well aware of the issues with widespread power outages. Yes I'm aware it was caused by failures across all producers.

Not relevant to the Texas situation because that was failure to prepare for extreme cold but this applies to both wind and solar if you wanted to fully replace conventional power, more so solar. If you have perfect weather conditions and have the capacity to meet demand you can do that for arguments sake for 8 hours. If the demand over the next 16 hours is the same for the 8 hours your capacity requirements just doubled an you need the means to store half of it. If the weather conditions the next day are poor your capacity requirements just quadrupled and you need to be able to store 3/4 of that power.

There is no way to ever meet the reliability of coal, nuclear, natural gas or hydro. You can provide a buffer for a few days but that is at extraordinary cost and you are hoping Mother Nature cooperates.

Instead we will continue to build gas plants to guarantee power and as more renewables come online they will be idled more necessarily increasing the cost per kWh they produce.

[Cornucopia]

Much of the issue with those recent outage FAILS were due to Texas being on their own grid, not connected to the rest of the country (because: bravado?,pride?, probably greed), so when there was a burden on it (whole state being pushed to limit) there was no way to be fed by other areas less strapped. Luckily, this has finally been rectified this past fall.

IMO, we (all) should never be fully dependent on ANY 1 method (or narrow category) of energy generation. And it does behoove us to find/invent new forms of energy storage.

Scott

[ProJiJi]

Energy storage is definitely one aspect of this that needs upgrading/improvement, but what is really needed is some new method for capturing/creating energy. I sometimes wonder if the plasma inside our own home, Earth, couldn't be given a closer look as a source for harnessing energy to help us cook our hamburgers.

By the way, it doesn't bother me one bit that we wonder around in the thread and address different topics, or maybe topics loosely related to my initial question for this thread; just as long as "The Man" doesn't mind the wandering around like that. (I did mean "wonder around")

BUT, let me toss something into this that is . . . well, let me sort of wander back over to the original trail by asking the following:

Which of you in this VideoHelp Community will eclipse Alain Colmerauer and write the next level of code above PROLOG?

Maybe a couple levels above PROLOG.

Yes, there are Answer Set Programming and Datalog, but to achieve a jump into turning dreams into big-screen viewing one of you has to make a big-big jump to some new, presently unimaginable code/programming language. Something like a programming language that can create a programming language. Of course, that is then taking us into dangerous waters, yes? But like that Columbus fella who found humans new to him and his crew when he landed in his New World, you may find something waiting for you when you create the programming language that can create a programming language.

And here is what I saw when I checked a search engine with that idea:


[Attachment 84682 - Click to enlarge]

The search engine thought I was asking for information about humans writing programs.

[thecoalman]

but what is really needed is some new method for capturing/creating energy. I sometimes wonder if the plasma inside our own home, Earth, couldn't be given a closer look as a source for harnessing energy to help us cook our hamburgers.

Sans some enormous breakthrough in solar tech the likely candidates are geothermal or fusion. Fusion may be be 10 years out or 100 years out but that is the likely winner. We can already do fusion and have been able to do it for more than half a century, you can even do it in your basement. https://fusor.net/board/

Just recently there was breakthrough where they achieved more energy output than input which is a pretty big deal. The technology is just not scalable, e.g. a machine the size of refrigerator to power a Christmas tree light bulb isn't going to work

Geothermal has it's own issues, the biggest among them the best locations are usually protected areas. Yellowstone could power the entire world but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the drilling rigs to show up.

you may find something waiting for you when you create the programming language that can create a programming language.

AI has it's origins in understanding language, it's not very useful if it can't communicate. It may be able to drive a car without understanding language but not very useful if you can't tell it where to go.

Think it was Facebook a few years back that had two AI conversing with each other, they invented their own language for efficiency. There is no reason AI can't create it's own programming "language" but I would doubt it would be something human readable. Probably direct to machine code skipping the language part all together.

[_Al_]

Machine code is too deep, you need to work with memory, set up variables, it is bind to a hardware, they would talk some logic directly with some colloquial shortcuts. Those prolog type languages look like the thing. It works with facts. There might not be definition for things, just logic, like these line I too from wikipedia:
human(socrates).
defines Socrates as a human
then question and answer would be:
?- human(socrates).
Yes

then if just writing new facts and then question:
mortal(X) :- human(X).
?- mortal(X).
would give:
X = socrates

to do this with programming languages takes lots of code, setting up functions, classes if it starts to be complicated, not like this example. Also reading about this, this is all suppose to be based on Turing ideas. That guy was basically a genius, helped win 2nd World War, using his computer and logic. He also explained how really most simple rules can create interesting patterns and systems, things we see around thinking that is is life and probably something really complicated, like a cow skin pattern, but basically it is just cells doing some dumb simple algorithm while multiplying/growing that looks like it and nature selected it in evolution.

[thecoalman]

to do this with programming languages takes lots of code, setting up functions, classes if it starts to be complicated, not like this example.

I'm no expert on the matter but I know my way around PHP pretty well. I wouldn't insult programmers calling myself a programmer. What I do know is we use programming languages so we ran read it and understand it. Functions and classes are used to make it easier and avoid repetition/bloat. Those limitations won't exist with AI.

[ProJiJi]

... takes lots of code, ...

That could be the problem, we are using a wrong language. And I do mean to use the indefinite article "a" because maybe we are stuck using ... well, now I am repeating myself - - - a wrong language. If we have to type it we haven't completely opened up our brains. We're not fully thinking. And the AI we designed and let loose are also stuck using a wrong language, because that is what we taught them. (Can't use the singular "it" can I?)

[_Al_]

Different language might change our logic but it is designed to not be lost in this world, not for mathematics or strictly logic only. Language itself is not even good enough unless we know all subtle meanings, cultural differences. I was ordering "a cup of tee" in McDonald in USA, and they did not know what I wanted.

Brain skips details utterly (only tiny tiny fractions of it might be registered) and use simple, quick, logic only, experience, senses, intuition (which is experience perhaps, or vibes maybe too) at once to come up with a whole something. We do not operate with details at all, or to accumulate previous logic detail as complete, only remembering mostly what is important in our social circle (apes). And that happens again only after an experience. And some kids need lots of them to finally register that. Numbers are exact only about to 10, then it quickly becomes a lot, many, huge. We cannot operate the other way , only in some categories when basically would mean we are "a sick" paying a heavy price for that, something else would had to give at the same time. Also our reptilian part of brain simply overrides all logic at times, and that cannot be turned off.

That cannot support a flawless logic language and workflow. We do not and cannot work with exactness.

Just for a fun. I watched a video on internet what is a difference to be a millionaire and billionaire with an example.
How many days is a million seconds. Answer is 12 days. How many days is a billion seconds. Answer is about 32 years. Huge difference, beyond any comparison, but for us it would be all the same category => rich bastard. We do not come up with these exact comparisons only after using a calculator.

[Incorrigible]

So why can't we capture a dream? Which would mean identifying the code for a video. Just that the video is in your head/brain.

The answer is that our dreams, like all our thought processes and in fact all our biological processes, are a result of biochemical reactions.

Video, as all digital content, including all software, are the result of electrical states, specifically collections of sequences of zero volts (0's) and half volts (1's).

To accomplish what you describe would require us to be able to map biochemical reactions to sequences of electrical states after first having "read" those reactions.

The problem is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that in the process of trying to "read" those processes we also end up having an affect on them.

Le Chatelier's Principle tells us the same thing.

Even if these two principles didn't exist, the amount of storage needed to record these electrical states would be massive.

[_Al_]

That is a very good point, those signals are on such a basic level, that observing means to change it. And as our brain only is making a sense of those signals, it would come up with something different for us. One stray signal can mean totally different image in our brain that was constructed, heavily based on our experiences or brain working behind our back, with a goal to multiply/survive. It could mean a difference between a love and friendship, etc. That is why they say that a spark jumps (not sure what the English equivalent is) and someone falls in love, even if seeing tons of bad going with that person. Those parts were shot down, Simon says,..., ehm, brain says, Im releasing this potent to this body for the sake of ... his/her

When I watch sci-fi movies and this is happening, copying of a brain, it is actually a turning point for me, because no one will be able to back up a brain. First by backing it up means, getting totally something else, and because of that, anything after that, makes totally no sense.

And mentioning a massive amount of data, ..., we would also need something like that Maxwell demon scheme, we know now about, and knowing laws of thermodynamics. It would need an immense power. Just even managing it, if it was possible, which is not, would cause a temperature increase, and our brain would instantly explode.

[thecoalman]

That could be the problem, we are using a wrong language.

Language has evolved so we can understand each other, it continues to evolve especially over the past 25+ years. Perhaps in 50 years everyone will be speaking using shorthand letters. Programming languages are similar, they express things using shorthand.

$z = ($x == $y) ? true : false; 

If $x is equal to $y then $z is true else $z is false. That example is about as short as it's going to get before you can't understand it.

I mentioned previously AI ditching English and creating their own more efficient language. If I understand correctly it was basically a very complex Morse code type communication not easily understood by humans, perhaps impossible to understand without deep analysis.

[Cornucopia]

So why can't we capture a dream? Which would mean identifying the code for a video. Just that the video is in your head/brain.

The answer is that our dreams, like all our thought processes and in fact all our biological processes, are a result of biochemical reactions.

Video, as all digital content, including all software, are the result of electrical states, specifically collections of sequences of zero volts (0's) and half volts (1's).

To accomplish what you describe would require us to be able to map biochemical reactions to sequences of electrical states after first having "read" those reactions.

The problem is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that in the process of trying to "read" those processes we also end up having an affect on them.

Le Chatelier's Principle tells us the same thing.

Even if these two principles didn't exist, the amount of storage needed to record these electrical states would be massive.

Heisenberg principle deals with uncertainty in Quantum physics, Le Chatelier principle deals with maintaining equilibrium in chemical interactions. Neither of those are necessarily extrapolateable to brainwave recording and interpretation into machine-readable video language. That is a stretch!

I do agree with you, however, that any resulting dataset would be gargantuan.


Scott

[ProJiJi]

I am going to try and remain in an 'almost' complete amateur mode here as I allow questions to arise in my mind and not immediately try an answer at my own volition, or go looking for an answer. So that brings forth another oddball question:

Where are the divides between the brain outputting, storing, and receiving?

Now I am asking that, because I am wondering if those divides are rigid --- straight lines? Or are they wavy and not at all rigid and clear?

Yes, I understand that "wavy" / "rigid" / "clear" are very likely not good choices of vocabulary.

And I am sure this one is going to set everyone off, in that you'll be thinking of me as a real nut case [and you are probably right] BUT I can clearly understand where those dividing lines are with these machines at my work station, but how about in my brain?

I also might be able to offer something about this from an actual experience I had where I guess some part of my own brain simply turned itself off. Very lucky it happened while I was an in-patient and my chief doc just happened to be sitting at the ward's staff work console just a few meters away and heard my head hit the floor. But a full description of that should wait. It may not be at all useful.

[Incorrigible]

Heisenberg principle deals with uncertainty in Quantum physics, Le Chatelier principle deals with maintaining equilibrium in chemical interactions. Neither of those are necessarily extrapolateable to brainwave recording and interpretation into machine-readable video language. That is a stretch!

It is a common misconception that Heisenberg only applies on the micro level, it has been known for years, and has been proven, that it applies on the macro level as well:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-quantum-physics_n_2694043

Heisenberg most certainly applies on the molecular level, in fact it has been demonstrated to apply the collision of billiards balls.

Further, while you are correct that Le Chatelier is used for calculating chemical equilibrium the act of trying to measure that equilibrium by definition also effects the equilibrium.

Since thought processes are the result of chemical reactions and since a chemical imbalance has been proven to result in altered thought patterns, it stands to reason that any attempt to measure the thought patterns in our brains so that they can be recorded would also effect the thought patterns in the process.

A simple example is when you are trying to calculate the equilibrium concentration from initial concentrations.

Assume you know the initial concentrations, you put together an ICE table, calculate the concentration changes and the equilibrium concentrations.

Now you need to confirm your calculated concentrations.

How do you do that?

One way is to titrate but the act of titrating by definition changes the concentrations and the equilibrium, so you have to take that into account as a correction factor in your calculations.

I also want to point out a branch of chemistry called Quantum Chemistry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

These calculations include systematically applied approximations intended to make calculations computationally feasible while still capturing as much information about important contributions to the computed wave functions as well as to observable properties such as structures, spectra, and thermodynamic properties.

In a nutshell the best we could do is to approximate the chemical reactions that result in what we call a dream, it is a fundamental law of physics that we can never capture the exact dream "bit-for-bit" and it's not a technology limitation it is a physical limitation.

[jagabo]

"AI re-creates what people see by reading their brain scans"

https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-re-creates-what-people-see-reading-their-brain-scans

“When a person is dreaming about an object or scene, the brain activity is similar to that caused by actually seeing the same object or scene.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2504

[ProJiJi]

The article in the second link, jagabo, has something that raised a question; if a person is sleepwalking due to a dream, isn't there some sort of physical sensory input?

BUT, I am guilty of not fully reading that second article, as I used so much time reading the first and it is morning here and I'm needing to get some morning stuff done. Still, what I quoted seems quite definitive and I'd be very surprised if the researchers who wrote that would contradict that further along in that document.

... but there is no physical sensory input ...

And there has been something else that has been nagging me for a bit now, but not when I first thought about the initial question when I started the thread --- I have had one very definite dream actually happen and another situation where I and somebody else were about to do something and I then remembered I'd had the conclusion to that in a dream and so we turned the car around.

Now that second situation was not near as clear as the first, because the first had my wife involved because I was so shocked by the dream that I told her about it in detail before the news got to us that it actually happened. And it was breaking news and we figured out later it happened while we were asleep, so there was no way I received the information before I fell asleep.

In fact, just writing about it here has me kind of freaked out all over again. It was just way, way too weird. Unfortunately, it also included the death of another human, but not one related to either myself or my wife.

That second situation sort of outlined about never really had a conclusion, so that one was weird and scary, but not near as scary as the first one explained. They actually happened in reverse order from how I inputted them into this text box.

But I'm kind of rambling, aren't I?

Let me get back to that sleepwalking question. That and that contention those researchers wrote has me confused.

WAIT! My brain just hit another snag; what brain activity when you are in a sleep state is actually categorized as dreaming? Maybe science folks don't even use the vocabulary "dream". Now I can't remember if that vocabulary was used in the first article. And I'm running out of time. Obviously, I've wandered into a confused state and will have to get back to this later today. I hope.

Oh yes, and thank you to all for your thoughts on this topic. And the links to research papers. Lots of homework here.

[Incorrigible]

"AI re-creates what people see by reading their brain scans"

https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-re-creates-what-people-see-reading-their-brain-scans

“When a person is dreaming about an object or scene, the brain activity is similar to that caused by actually seeing the same object or scene.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2504

Recreating is not the same as recording.

I will bet money that it is impossible to record a bit-for-bit copy of what we see by recording our brain activity.

As my link stated, we can approximate chemical reactions, we can not record them bit-for-bit.

Data on a disk, including video data, is discrete data, made up of a finite electrical states, thought processes, like all chemical reactions, are from our preservative infinite energy states, within the limits of Planck.

What is basically being asked is if we can use a finite data set to record an exact copy of an infinite sequence, we can not.

Best we can do is approximate it using a large enough sequence of finite data points.

[Incorrigible]

I suggest everyone interested in this subject to read the actual paper mentioned in the article jagabo linked to:

https://sites.google.com/view/stablediffusion-with-brain/

Take notice of the significant differences between the picture viewed vs the AI generated representation.

[El Heggunte]

Since thought processes are the result of chemical reactions

That premise is wrong. That's not science, that's just bad philosophy.

[pandy]

Sorry but can't resist to not write in this topic - science do not know for sure how vision is processed - for example science don't have full knowledge how information is reduced (we know only some parts of this process) - we can do only educated guess that some processing is done in nerve layer inside eye itself as informational capacity for vision nerve is insufficient to allow pass information from retina to cortex without substantial compression - to be honest i have impression that your question can't be answered... Wishing you all the best and lot of health.

[Incorrigible]

Since thought processes are the result of chemical reactions

That premise is wrong. That's not science, that's just bad philosophy.

This is basic biochemistry.

But I'm willing to be educated, please explain to me how thoughts occur if it is not the result of chemical reactions and then explain to me why it is that chemical imbalances have a direct affect on our thought processes.

[ProJiJi]

Since thought processes are the result of chemical reactions

That premise is wrong. That's not science, that's just bad philosophy.

This is basic biochemistry.

But I'm willing to be educated, please explain to me how thoughts occur if it is not the result of chemical reactions and then explain to me why it is that chemical imbalances have a direct affect on our thought processes.

In fear, I also must confess that removing chemical influences from any equation on how our brain functions has me perplexed. But the "fear" is because all this "chemical" stuff is way, way out of my league, except for the "chemical" that can fuel an engine for my chopper, both two-wheeled and bladed, or be used as lubricants in either.

I further confess I thought there were chemicals in my brain and that is because they had to give me some very, very hardcore chemicals to kill the cancer that moved to my brain when I had to go through the third relapse program.

That chemical was so special and tightly controlled that it could only be dispensed by the hospital pill guy and not gotten at the regular pharmacy. I even had to return the empty pill thingies and they counted them each month when I had the refill thingy happening. That went on for a full year. And that "chemical" worked, because I am still alive.

So that is kind of why I 'thought' (think) there were (are) some sort of chemicals inside my brain.

As for "bad philosophy" that describes ME. Haven't any of you noticed I write bad philosophy stuff around here all the time? Me is a great example of bad philosophy! Just look at the idiot that started this thread!! I might add as a side note that this 'idiot' was taunted in another thread I started about some weird regulations being soon fully enforced in some unimportant island nation. Well, it seemed it was claimed "unimportant" if your Community is in/on some other part of Earth far from the "unimportant" island where the "unimportant" regulation is soon to be fully enforced. Please don't get angry at me admin guy for adding this side note. Just trying to qualify my idiot status in this Community. Every good Community has a fully qualified idiot.

[ProJiJi]

I'm not sure if this address will work from the IEEE.org site, but let me try:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=ternary

You see, I am interested in stepping into the thoughts anyone might have about ternary logic.

In fact, there is probably a Wikipedia page on this I didn't think about when I was checking my notes.

It hit me earlier this morning that I remembered that some years ago I was wondering what could have happened if base 3 had been an industry standard instead of base 2. I just cranked up a unit that had those notes and am running this post a little too fast and may be making some mistakes, but the key components of this recent thought process are in place. I think. By "recent" I mean, just in the past hour or so. Sorry that I am a bit in a hurry here.

NOTE: The original link from my notes didn't work, so that new link is more like a tweak and not pointing to a particular written document. Maybe my earlier link requires membership, but I'm not remembering properly. I hope that link up there does help, if anyone is interested in this.